Subject: charter question re IKE changes

From: "Linn, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:59:10 -0400

I'd like to ask a charter question which relates to both IPsec and IPSRA
WGs.  IPSRA, based on IESG inputs, has been operating under the premise that
its work should not impact IKE's syntax or semantics if feasibly avoidable,
with a strong preference to work instead alongside IKE as currently defined.
This premise has constrained the design space for candidate IPSRA proposals.
Recent discussion on IPsec has suggested significant changes to IKE,
potentially removing or replacing authentication modes. Question: If IKE's
definition is to be reopened within IPsec, should IPSRA's admissible design
space continue to be constrained by RFC-2409?

--jl

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:08:12 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>
>space continue to be constrained by RFC-2409?

Yes.

Most of the talk here has been about removing things, not adding more.  
IPSRA would need to add more.

		--Steve Bellovin

---

From: "Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:40:29 -0600

How amazing.  I use emacs, too.

Hilarie

>>> Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> 10/13/00 02:35PM >>>
At 9:35 AM -0700 10/13/00, Dan Harkins wrote:
>   The lack of people implementing good products should not be a
>motivating factor in developing standards. If we all agree on
>how it *could* work then let's promote that.
>
>   I think the market will follow a good solution. I used to love
>teco until someone showed me vi and that love affair lasted
>until someone showed me emacs.
>
>   Dan.

I am in complete agreement with Dan.

Steve